What is the republican solution to ending mass shootings? Why don’t they ever offer solutions?

[Lesh]

------------------------------------------------------- its generally thought that the 2ND Amendent refers to man portable and non crew served firearms . The thinking goes that Americans have the RIGHT to be armed with the same firearms as the normal American combat soldiers Wry !!

Normal American combat soldiers have rocket launchers, machine guns, and grenades

 

[pismoe]

we disagree on the vetting and continuous NEW Vetting rules by many corrupt politicians and people and rule makers and their NEW rules on gun owners that keep coming down the pike Wry .

 

[2aguy]

We already have background checks for buying guns in every state.

And yet 5 million guns are sold legally without a back ground check..

How odd huh?

-------------------------------------------------- shouldn't be any background checks as thats an infringement on the Second Amendment as are ALL gun laws . We , Americans are supposed to be an Armed People . In the 60s as an 11 year old i could buy a WW2 Military surplus Battle Rifle for 12 bucks and have it delivered to my parents house Lesh .

So let's assume you get your way and anyone can buy a firearm no matter their background. And, BTW, ARMS describes not only guns, but other weapons not limited to the generic gun.

How soon until an enterprising entrepreneur will market Fragmentation hand grenades in various colors and with longer detonation times. Modern hand frag grenades have a kill range of 5 meters, can be tossed about 40 yards and produce casualties at 15 meters.

A great tool left under a napkin at a crowded restaurant for the disaffected McVeigh wannabe.

------------------------------------------------------- its generally thought that the 2ND Amendent refers to man portable and non crew served firearms . The thinking goes that Americans have the RIGHT to be armed with the same firearms as the normal American combat soldiers Wry !!

Whose thinking? BTW I've written too many times for you to have missed it, that I support the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control in their home or business defensive firearms, if the person who wants to own, possess, etc. a gun (long or short) is found to be sane, sober and law abiding after a vetting.

I also believe each of the states have the right to license and have all gun registered to prevent those who are not sober, sane or law abiding the privilege to own, possess, etc. a firearm of any type.

And you have yet to explain how licensing gun owners will stop criminals from getting guns....or how registering guns will stop criminals from getting guns.

Neither action will do anything to stop mass public shooters....since they will get a license for their gun, register their guns, and then go to a public place and shoot people, and neither action will stop criminals...since they already can't get a license...yet get guns easily, and they are not required to register illegal guns due to their 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination....

So, nothing you propose will do anything to stop criminals, but all it does is make it more of a burden for law abiding people to own and carry guns.....how does that make any sense to a sane, rational human being?

 

[pismoe]

We already have background checks for buying guns in every state.

And yet 5 million guns are sold legally without a back ground check..

How odd huh?

-------------------------------------------------- shouldn't be any background checks as thats an infringement on the Second Amendment as are ALL gun laws . We , Americans are supposed to be an Armed People . In the 60s as an 11 year old i could buy a WW2 Military surplus Battle Rifle for 12 bucks and have it delivered to my parents house Lesh .

So let's assume you get your way and anyone can buy a firearm no matter their background. And, BTW, ARMS describes not only guns, but other weapons not limited to the generic gun.

How soon until an enterprising entrepreneur will market Fragmentation hand grenades in various colors and with longer detonation times. Modern hand frag grenades have a kill range of 5 meters, can be tossed about 40 yards and produce casualties at 15 meters.

A great tool left under a napkin at a crowded restaurant for the disaffected McVeigh wannabe.

------------------------------------------------------- its generally thought that the 2ND Amendent refers to man portable and non crew served firearms . The thinking goes that Americans have the RIGHT to be armed with the same firearms as the normal American combat soldiers Wry !!

------------------------------------ i use the word FIREARMS that normal combat soldiers carry Lesh .

 

[2aguy]

Grenades actually fit the dangerous and unusual definition under the District of Columbia v Heller decision.....rifels, pistols and shotguns do not.

Assault weapons certainly do

No, actually, they don't....in fact.....since you can't explain what an Assault Rifle is, how do you even know that they would apply?

As for the AR-15, it is not covered under dangerous and unusual....the ruling in Caetano v. Massachusettes addresses the 4th Circuits attempt to ban weapons by trying to falsely define them as dangerous and unusual.....Justice Alito explained exactly what is meant by dangerous and unusual....

And as to the Dangerous and Unusual portion....from Miller......Justice Alito Addresses that in Caetano v. Massachusetts as he confirms that Heller protects these weapons....

....these rifles are protected and those bans are unConstitutional...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

-----

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


--

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.

 

[jc456]

ARs are not assault weapons... They are just sporting rifles nothing more nothing less

Can't you think before you post? What sport do you believe AR's are used for? Targets of innocent men, women and children seem to be one sport, so to speak.

Funny how of the 8 million of them in the hands of civilians about .00002% of them are used to kill people

I guess all those people who don't kill other people with them are using them incorrectly huh?

I used my .223 semiauto to kill a rabid skunk over the summer that is what a .223 is for

If you really want to kill people there are far better firearms to use

Well what they do, is they use the most heinous of the crimes committed in order to say that we MUST BAN GUNS OR REGULATE THEM OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE CITIZENS WHO WON'T ANY LONGER BE TRUSTED IN A DEMON-CRAT RUN SYSTEM THAT WILL BE CREATED ONCE THEY GET TOTAL CONTROL.

You see, they have figured now that they know best for us, and we don't know squat anymore. You didn't get the memo ??

That’s the real problem is the leftists thinking they are gawd!

Half-Truth ^^^ Yes, the left thinks, and does not think we are God; the Right, on the other hand, does not think and reacts emotionally, many times hysterically.

Sure you do, you just said so

 

[2aguy]

Grenades actually fit the dangerous and unusual definition under the District of Columbia v Heller decision.....rifels, pistols and shotguns do not.

Assault weapons certainly do

And Scalia, who wrote the opinion in D.C v. Heller which states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment......specifically protects the AR-15 rifle in Friedman v Highland Park.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[2aguy]

------------------------------------------------------- its generally thought that the 2ND Amendent refers to man portable and non crew served firearms . The thinking goes that Americans have the RIGHT to be armed with the same firearms as the normal American combat soldiers Wry !!

Normal American combat soldiers have rocket launchers, machine guns, and grenades

Rocket launchers.....anti tank weapons, are not standard issue equipment for the combat soldier.....machine guns are crew served weapons....and grenades fit the dangerous and unusual definition in that they are random and area effect weapons, not suitable for personal defense.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I used my .223 semiauto to kill a rabid skunk over the summer that is what a .223 is for

And you could have done that just as easily with your 870...unless you are REALLY lame

Yeah and I would have had to pick up the pieces of a rabid skunk rather than just the whole body

You don't know shit about the danger of rabies do you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I asked you how you would prevent anyone who is not diagnosed as mentally ill or not being treated for mental illness from legally buying a gun

Then I asked you that since medical records are private and protected by a myriad of laws how would you ever know who was actually diagnosed as mentally ill?

IOW I asked you for a solution but you don't have any do you?

So you're saying that the real issue with gun violence centers around mental health...for which there is no solution (in your opinion).

Yea...no...

We have solutions. Reduce the number of guns available.Make sure all gun purchases are done with a back ground check. Eliminates sales of assault weapons and possibly semi-auto mag fed,keep people on no fly list from buying gun...

I said no such thing.

I asked you a question and you didn't answer it

The semiauto ban will never happen.

and civilians cannot buy assault weapons

I will disagree, every gun is an assault weapon!

Every stick is an assault weapon
Every fist is an assault weapon
Maybe we should make people get background checks for fists

 

[jc456]

They do not have a right of freedom of speech, nowhere does it say that.
They like all of Europe are part of a fucked up collective...

True, we don’t have any real freedom in this country… Just like every other country

The right to the freedom of speech ends when someone yells fire in a crowded theater. The example is really an identifier of when people abuse their freedom of speech.

So I just don't understand when people like Joe Biden "yells fire in a crowded theater", when he made the comments "they want to just put you all back in chains".

That's about as dirty and low down as it gets, but somehow that piece of work gets away with it ?? Then we have Maxine Waters and others doing the same dirty low down crap, and yep getting away with it. Then people get hurt because of their bullcrap, but no one calls them out on it or better yet brings charges against them for violating their free speech rights. Not sure what the charges would be, but something needs to be done when they choose to yell fire in a crowded theater for political purposes and power.

It’s the cost of freedom. People think freedom means free!

Agree, but not free to do anything. Tell the left that today, and they go crazy.

They are busy trying to end our freedoms, but don't dare try and stop their idiocy or bullcrap, because they go insane.

Again, they think freedom means free! JFK said it best. They don’t careeeee

Are you saying that I didn't help to pay for your freedoms? Your freekin freeloaders.

I think the comment was you don’t know what freedom means! You’re trying to take them

 

[Skull Pilot]

People kill people not firearms

Nuclear bombs don't kill people.

No the person who arms the bomb and drops it or launches the ICBM is the one that is doing the killing

 

[jc456]

I asked you how you would prevent anyone who is not diagnosed as mentally ill or not being treated for mental illness from legally buying a gun

Then I asked you that since medical records are private and protected by a myriad of laws how would you ever know who was actually diagnosed as mentally ill?

IOW I asked you for a solution but you don't have any do you?

So you're saying that the real issue with gun violence centers around mental health...for which there is no solution (in your opinion).

Yea...no...

We have solutions. Reduce the number of guns available.Make sure all gun purchases are done with a back ground check. Eliminates sales of assault weapons and possibly semi-auto mag fed,keep people on no fly list from buying gun...

I said no such thing.

I asked you a question and you didn't answer it

The semiauto ban will never happen.

and civilians cannot buy assault weapons

I will disagree, every gun is an assault weapon!

Every stick is an assault weapon
Every fist is an assault weapon
Maybe we should make people get background checks for fists

Exactly!!! That’s how stupid they are

 

[jc456]

Has it struck anyone else what "reasonable people" these gun nuts are?

Kinda gives ya a warm fuzzy...

Not trying to take anything of yours are we?

 

[jc456]

People kill people not firearms

Nuclear bombs don't kill people.

No the person who arms the bomb and drops it or launches the ICBM is the one that is doing the killing

Exactly

 

[pismoe]

its also my thinking that the more guns there are in GOOD peoples hands then when the confrontations between good and bad happen there will be deaths . Seems to me that with more GOOD people in the USA then ALL or the majority of the BAD people will eventually be shot dead . --------------------------- sorta like a WINNOWING of the good people and the bad people eh Lesh , Wry .

 

[Flopper]

Lol
They have no freedom of firearm ownership, and they have no freedom of speech for that matter...
Why even own firearms in a place like that… You truly don’t own them.

In Switzerland, they DO have freedom of speech and press. In fact, their press is more free than ours is.

They do not have a right of freedom of speech, nowhere does it say that.
They like all of Europe are part of a fucked up collective...

True, we don’t have any real freedom in this country… Just like every other country

The right to the freedom of speech ends when someone yells fire in a crowded theater. The example is really an identifier of when people abuse their freedom of speech.

So I just don't understand when people like Joe Biden "yells fire in a crowded theater", when he made the comments "they want to just put you all back in chains".

That's about as dirty and low down as it gets, but somehow that piece of work gets away with it ?? Then we have Maxine Waters and others doing the same dirty low down crap, and yep getting away with it. Then people get hurt because of their bullcrap, but no one calls them out on it or better yet brings charges against them for violating their free speech rights. Not sure what the charges would be, but something needs to be done when they choose to yell fire in a crowded theater for political purposes and power.

It’s the cost of freedom. People think freedom means free!

Agree, but not free to do anything. Tell the left that today, and they go crazy.

They are busy trying to end our freedoms, but don't dare try and stop their idiocy or bullcrap, because they go insane.

In our society we limit the freedoms of some to provide more freedom for others. Federal, state, and local laws infringe on the rights of property owners. The government creates more and more barriers to travel. Parents ability to discipline their children, manage their education and healthcare are infringe on more and more, etc, etc...

 

[Brain357]

Grenades actually fit the dangerous and unusual definition under the District of Columbia v Heller decision.....rifels, pistols and shotguns do not.

Assault weapons certainly do

And Scalia, who wrote the opinion in D.C v. Heller which states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment......specifically protects the AR-15 rifle in Friedman v Highland Park.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Scalia said the second has it's limits. Why do you wish to so heavily arm killers?

 

[Rustic]

Grenades actually fit the dangerous and unusual definition under the District of Columbia v Heller decision.....rifels, pistols and shotguns do not.

Assault weapons certainly do

And Scalia, who wrote the opinion in D.C v. Heller which states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment......specifically protects the AR-15 rifle in Friedman v Highland Park.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Scalia said the second has it's limits. Why do you wish to so heavily arm killers?

Lol
This country is not armed well enough... it needs to be better armed.
Buy more guns and ammo...

 

[Brain357]

Grenades actually fit the dangerous and unusual definition under the District of Columbia v Heller decision.....rifels, pistols and shotguns do not.

Assault weapons certainly do

And Scalia, who wrote the opinion in D.C v. Heller which states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment......specifically protects the AR-15 rifle in Friedman v Highland Park.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Scalia said the second has it's limits. Why do you wish to so heavily arm killers?

Lol
This country is not armed well enough... it needs to be better armed.
Buy more guns and ammo...

Yeah we have by far the most guns in the world and our homicide rates are 4-5X higher than countries with strong gun control. What a deal.